Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

The Candidates Qualification System

Nakamura seems like a worthy participant to the Candidates'. He does not live up to his #1 rating, but still he is in 5th position.
Of course the 400 elo rule makes no sense.
The 2nd spot for the Grand Swiss and the 3rd spot for the World Cup seem less justified.

Nakamura seems like a worthy participant to the Candidates'. He does not live up to his #1 rating, but still he is in 5th position. Of course the 400 elo rule makes no sense. The 2nd spot for the Grand Swiss and the 3rd spot for the World Cup seem less justified.

The preview picture is so well edited! Respect!

The preview picture is so well edited! Respect!

i mean, naka is playing pretty good in the candidates rights?

i mean, naka is playing pretty good in the candidates rights?

I would rather say that current qualification system as a whole is overengineered and overcomplicated. That inevitably leads to people complaining about details and everyone dislikes something else as even this discussion already shows: one disagrees with the rating spot, another with the number of spots for Grand Swiss or World Cup...

All this makes me appreciate the simplicity of the old model of zonal and interzonal tournaments. A frequent objection is that the 3-year cycle was too slow and it would not allow young and talented players to get to the top as fast as they can with 2-year cycle. But seeing a new unbeatable young star shining brightly every year, only to fall into a deep tilt the next, I can't help wondering if slowing down a bit wouldn't be actually for the better.

I would rather say that current qualification system as a whole is overengineered and overcomplicated. That inevitably leads to people complaining about details and everyone dislikes something else as even this discussion already shows: one disagrees with the rating spot, another with the number of spots for Grand Swiss or World Cup... All this makes me appreciate the simplicity of the old model of zonal and interzonal tournaments. A frequent objection is that the 3-year cycle was too slow and it would not allow young and talented players to get to the top as fast as they can with 2-year cycle. But seeing a new unbeatable young star shining brightly every year, only to fall into a deep tilt the next, I can't help wondering if slowing down a bit wouldn't be actually for the better.

I would suggest that the entire world championship cycle is boring. minus any event such as candidates with decent time controls and strong players.

I would suggest that the entire world championship cycle is boring. minus any event such as candidates with decent time controls and strong players.

It's important that the cycle is somehow de-complicated, but it's a very hard task to do. Afaik earlier candidates tournaments were bigger. The Grand Swiss was arguably fantastic as an event and also as a pre-qualifier (spectator perspective), it was really great to watch and had me glued to the screen as much as I could somehow afford.

The Candidates tournament was also nice from a spectator perspective, we had a good mix.. Nakamura was a bit out of it, which was strange to see - he gamed the system which was just bad for everyone watching and also bad for his form - but that led to it being fixed at least a bit.

Sindarov was a welcome surprise and took the tournament's momentum in the later rounds, but that is inevitable in a way.

Maybe a return to super old practices with bigger Candidates into 4=>2=>1 KO-Matches is something?
Maybe develop a new system and test it in a "Rapid / Blitz World Championship" first?
Hard topic, but necessary discussion.

It's important that the cycle is somehow de-complicated, but it's a very hard task to do. Afaik earlier candidates tournaments were bigger. The Grand Swiss was arguably fantastic as an event and also as a pre-qualifier (spectator perspective), it was really great to watch and had me glued to the screen as much as I could somehow afford. The Candidates tournament was also nice from a spectator perspective, we had a good mix.. Nakamura was a bit out of it, which was strange to see - he gamed the system which was just bad for everyone watching and also bad for his form - but that led to it being fixed at least a bit. Sindarov was a welcome surprise and took the tournament's momentum in the later rounds, but that is inevitable in a way. Maybe a return to super old practices with bigger Candidates into 4=>2=>1 KO-Matches is something? Maybe develop a new system and test it in a "Rapid / Blitz World Championship" first? Hard topic, but necessary discussion.

I wouldn't ditch the rating spot altogether, but modify it slightly, e.g. by requiring more games to be played or participation (no matter the result) in top tournaments.

I wouldn't ditch the rating spot altogether, but modify it slightly, e.g. by requiring more games to be played or participation (no matter the result) in top tournaments.

@Metagross31 said ^

I wouldn't ditch the rating spot altogether, but modify it slightly, e.g. by requiring more games to be played or participation (no matter the result) in top tournaments.

Yes, I agree with you, so true.

@Metagross31 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/OhlFBK2C) > I wouldn't ditch the rating spot altogether, but modify it slightly, e.g. by requiring more games to be played or participation (no matter the result) in top tournaments. Yes, I agree with you, so true.